posted at 3:31 pm on December 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

You know how it is with these budget deals. The tea-party guys in Congress always line up to express their outrage: Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell. Wait, what?

Signs of a Republican revolt brewing?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will vote against the deal brokered by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, a knowledgeable source close to the Kentucky Republican told The Daily Caller on Wednesday.

While the budget proposal is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, McConnell joins a growing list of Republican senators — including Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rand Paul of Kentucky — who oppose the deal…

McConnell’s opposition to a deal that the House GOP leadership — including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor — have fully embraced isn’t much of a surprise. He has long spoken in support of keeping what’s known as the sequester cuts intact…

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that McConnell met with House Republicans last month, urging them not to get rid of the automatic budget cuts.

And so it came to be that Mitch the Knife and Jim DeMint ended up on the same side of a dubious bargain struck by Republican leaders. I wonder if that’s because, as the Daily Caller notes, McConnell really does oppose sequester rollbacks strongly enough to cross Boehner and Ryan or just because he’s worried about the tea-party primary challenge he’s getting from Matt Bevin in Kentucky. Hard for me to believe, given the conservative indictment against him, that one more vote for compromise would be the tipping point for voters who are otherwise inclined to stick with him. Maybe he sees some potential for righty disgruntlement over this deal to erupt into a rebellion in the House and litmus-test problems for any incumbent who votes the wrong way. In that case, though, how come so many House Republicans sounded like they were willing to follow Ryan and Boehner after this morning’s caucus meeting?

“This bill was designed to pass with bipartisan support in the House,” said Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina. “It was not designed to get most of the people on this dais.” The far right and far left could cast their protest votes against it, but with the bulk of both parties supporting it, it would easily pass. The agreement is expected to come to the floor of the House on Thursday…

“[Ryan] got the best deal he could, but he was up against a liberal-controlled Senate that completely disregarded the law of the land,” said Representative Andy Harris. “This will not diminish his standing in any way,” added Representative Vicky Hartzler, who said it was only out of respect for Ryan that she hadn’t ruled out voting for the deal. “He has been a marvelous soldier in coming to this agreement.”

The mystery of whether the bill will pass will be over soon — it will, with bipartisan support in the House and the usual Collins/Kirk/Murkowski RINO crossovers in the Senate — but a lesser mystery will replace it. Namely, how long will Paul Ryan’s influence over the caucus last? To an outside observer, his endorsement of unpalatable budget deals in the past seems to have had an almost talismanic quality in getting GOP fencesitters to support them. Even now, per Robert Costa, it seems unlikely that conservative talk radio will excommunicate him as a RINO. But they’re killing him at Red State today and Mark Levin told him directly last night that the deal he struck with Murray was “Mickey Mouse.” I wonder if Ryan, who’s been championed by righties in the past, will eventually end up being championed by centrists eager to trade on his (waning?) conservative credibility as proof that the centrist compromises he agrees to should be good enough to meet any right-wing litmus test. Case in point: Via Mediaite, watch below as Nicolle Wallace challenges Tom Coburn’s criticisms of the deal on grounds that Paul Ryan helped negotiate it. Paul Ryan!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Yeah, he’s voting against it but there is still a new dam in it someplace for Kentucky that he will claim he had nothing to do with (until he runs an ad in whatever county in which it’s going to be built).

What is Mitch McConnell doing to stop it? Nothing. In fact, McConnell was completely silent on the deal yesterday.

Mitch McConnell may vote against the deal so he can pretend to be a conservative, but don’t be fooled. He wants the deal to pass. He made it clear that he won’t fight the Democrats on spending and he forced his party to surrender.
…

Not hardly. McConnell knows very well that the deal will pass on the backs of Senate Democrat votes without the need of the Vichy Republican caucus. So, he can vote against the deal and then tout this vote as ‘proof positive’ that he remains a ‘principled conservative’ and not part of the problem.

It seems that McConnell looks at the voter in the same manner as the progressive’s – stupid, apathetic, and ignorant.

While the budget proposal is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, McConnell joins a growing list of Republican senators — including Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rand Paul of Kentucky — who oppose the deal…

More examples of rinos who feel free to vote Republican when their vote makes absolutely no difference.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on a conference call organized by Karl Rove’s Crossroads organization for large donors and their advisers on Oct. 30 that the Tea Party movement, in his view, is a “nothing but a bunch of bullies” that he plans to “punch … in the nose.”
On the call, according to a donor who was on it, McConnell personally named Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) as Tea Party conservatives he views as problematic for him. “The bulk of it was an attack on the Tea Party in general, Cruz in particular,” the source, a prominent donor, said in a phone interview with Breitbart News.

But I should keep blindly supporting the Republicans because that’s how we win, right?

I don’t like the amnesty shill Ryan, and I supported the first shutdown and thought it really benefited us by getting the Dems to go on the record again in favor of Obamacare. But some have suggested that the budget issue / deal is small potatoes compared to Obamacare & larger entitlement reform issues.

Is McConnell running scared because of what some have said is a Dem financed challenger? Are Republicans going to breakdown over small potatoes and end up looking like bickering immature destructive dummies? At the expense of keeping the focus on Obamacare and winning future elections? McConnell really does seem like too much of an establishment type. But let’s make sure his challenger is legitimate, not Dem financed.

Please don’t fall for this desperate attempt to pander, conservative Kentucky voters. Orrin Hatch pulled the same crap in the year leading up to the 2012 election and then immediately turned around and supported amnesty. Run McConnell the hell out of there and send a message to the psuedo-conservatives in the House and Senate that no one is safe.

Is McConnell running scared because of what some have said is a Dem financed challenger? Are Republicans going to breakdown over small potatoes and end up looking like bickering immature destructive dummies? At the expense of keeping the focus on Obamacare and winning future elections? McConnell really does seem like too much of an establishment type. But let’s make sure his challenger is legitimate, not Dem financed.

anotherJoe on December 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Your right. We should keep the direction the party leadership has set for the past few years. We should get a Romney/McCain ticket together for 2016.

Please don’t fall for this desperate attempt to pander, conservative Kentucky voters. Orrin Hatch pulled the same crap in the year leading up to the 2012 election and then immediately turned around and supported amnesty. Run McConnell the hell out of there and send a message to the psuedo-conservatives in the House and Senate that no one is safe.

Doughboy on December 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Because Delaware voters sure sent the message, right? And Nevada too.

The message apparently is, “we want another 5 years of Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

The dims would like nothing more than another gov’t shutdown to take the focus off 0bamacare. Nothing is going to change with 0bama in the WH and the dims in charge of the Senate. Take the least objectionable alternative and keep the spotlight on 0bamacare.

The dims would like nothing more than another gov’t shutdown to take the focus off 0bamacare. Nothing is going to change with 0bama in the WH and the dims in charge of the Senate. Take the least objectionable alternative and keep the spotlight on 0bamacare.

Lou Budvis on December 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Hmmm, last shut down did not do them any good.
I doubt one that happens while Americans are actually left without insurance due to Obamacare will in fact benefit the Republicans tremendously.
We are fighting for you, the American Citizen, we tried to help you back in October, and you did not listen. With your insurance gone because of Obamacare, can you hear us now? If so, tell your congressman to repeal Obamacare so your life can get back to normal.

The message apparently is, “we want another 5 years of Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

rockmom on December 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Who did Nevada reject in favor of Angle? Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian? Like they would’ve fared any better in the general election? And Mike Castle was a liberal Republican who voted for crap-and-betrayed while in the House(a vote which likely cost him the Senate nomination). Would I like to have that seat in Delaware? Sure. But don’t act like Castle would’ve been any sort of check on Obama and Reid.

As for McConnell, this is Kentucky we’re talking about for chrissakes. Rand Paul easily coasted to victory, and so will Matt Bevin or whomever else wins the GOP primary next year. I agree that there are some states where a RINO squish is the best we can do(which is why I never ragged on Scott Brown in MassachusettEs the way some did). But in a deep red state like Kentucky, we can do a helluva lot better than Mitch McConnell. And BTW, the same goes for Cornyn in Texas and Grahamnesty in South Carolina.

Ryan’s fame rested almost entirely on tearing into Obama, Wasserman, and other Dems shenanigans. If we had a time machine I would not be surprised if past Ryan called out present Ryan on his current shenanigans.

Unfortunately, except for Ted Cruz and a handful of others, Republicans have stopped focusing on, or even talking about, obamacare – they are currently spending all of their time planning their 2014 AMNESTY push.

Perhaps we are fighting the wrong battle. Like in poker sometimes you just have to pass. Even fold. There’s battles with bigger chips to come. Like winning the pivotal elections in 2014+16 so we can repeal Obamadontcare and pass our own budgets and replace the “Affordable” Careless Act with free market reforms that make medical care much more affordable and efficient and free. Save our energy and our electoral goodwill for what’s really important. Is this it? Personally I don’t see what the big issue is. There was a big issue before, in October, it was Obamacare. What’s it now? The sequester? Like we were all against the sequester before we were for it. True. I like the sequester now even if guts our military or whatever McCain is saying. But make sure we keep our eyes on the ball.

Please don’t fall for this desperate attempt to pander, conservative Kentucky voters. Orrin Hatch pulled the same crap in the year leading up to the 2012 election and then immediately turned around and supported amnesty. Run McConnell the hell out of there and send a message to the psuedo-conservatives in the House and Senate that no one is safe.

Doughboy on December 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yeah…you make a lot of sense…Dem wins KY if McConnell loses the primary. The woman running in KY will destroy the ‘Aiken’ like tea party opponent.

But now apparently we all love the sequester and hate Paul Ryan for getting rid of it. But we still hate Mitch McConnell, because, RINO, or something.

Can someone please tell me where the goalposts will be moved to tomorrow? I’m having a hard time keeping up these days.

rockmom on December 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Well, Republicans told us that something was better than nothing. Now they’re telling us, “Sorry suckers, we lied, you won’t even get that table scrap.” Not to mention that when the sequester first became an issue earlier in the year in February/March, conservatives full-throatedly supported it against many who said that it would “hurt” us later on. The sequester is literally the ONLY thing the Republicans have done right in the past four years.

I am disappointed you’d support a bait and switch like this and even more disappointed you’d attempt to rewrite history and claim conservatives never before supported the sequester before this current budget deal.

Please don’t fall for this desperate attempt to pander, conservative Kentucky voters. Orrin Hatch pulled the same crap in the year leading up to the 2012 election and then immediately turned around and supported amnesty. Run McConnell the hell out of there and send a message to the psuedo-conservatives in the House and Senate that no one is safe.

Doughboy on December 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yep. I find it interesting McConnell’s casting even a symbolic vote like this when he was loudly attacking conservatives just a few weeks ago. This shows me he’s worried. I didn’t think Matt Bevin would amount to anything, but now I’m not so sure.

2000, 2002, 2004 we won all of those and had a majority house and majority senate for most of it. Those battles did no good for conservatism, and in fact destroyed the brand enough that Americans were happy enough to give Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House position from 2006 through 2010, The Senate to Harry Reid from 2006 until today and the Presidency to Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

While I think Obamacare is going to harm Democrats come 2014 elections, lets be honest about something, all these failures on the part of the Republicans are going to cause the base to fail to turn out the vote like 2008 and 2012. The Republicans should be making minor wins rather than constant and many times disastrous losses in policy. Why give Democrats a reason to turn out in 2014 and Republicans a reason to leave their friend and family home again in 2014?

Not that I really think you are a republican anyways, well, certainly no more so than McCain or Graham are.

Perhaps we are fighting the wrong battle. Like in poker sometimes you just have to pass. Even fold. There’s battles with bigger chips to come. Like winning the pivotal elections in 2014+16 so we can repeal Obamadontcare and pass our own budgets and replace the “Affordable” Careless Act with free market reforms that make medical care much more affordable and efficient and free. Save our energy and our electoral goodwill for what’s really important. Is this it? Personally I don’t see what the big issue is. There was a big issue before, in October, it was Obamacare. What’s it now? The sequester? Like we were all against the sequester before we were for it. True. I like the sequester now even if guts our military or whatever McCain is saying. But make sure we keep our eyes on the ball.

anotherJoe on December 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

The problem is that this wait for the big-issues-idea so that the GOP can retake the Senate is that the GOP track record when they have the power isn’t so great. Like when Bush was President and the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress, and we ended up with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. About the only bone conservatives got was the Bush tax cuts. Government was grown ever more under GOP control. We have to let the GOP know now that this continual growth of government is killing us as a country.

A political gesture mo more. Its all show and no substance. The turtle knows the conservative base is going yo kick him out in 2014 and he is doing this knowing there aren’t enough votes to stop this on the senate and he hopes the R base is as stupid as the D base. Sorry turtle we see right through you. Remember this next year Kentucky voters. He thinks you are stupid. Prove him wrong and fire his chinless self from the Senate!

Unfortunately, except for Ted Cruz and a handful of others, Republicans have stopped focusing on, or even talking about, obamacare – they are currently spending all of their time planning their 2014 AMNESTY push.

Pork-Chop on December 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Should we surrender on amnesty, gun control and other important issues, too, in order to ‘keep the spotlight on Obamacare’, Lou?

Can someone please tell me where the goalposts will be moved to tomorrow? I’m having a hard time keeping up these days.

rockmom on December 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Tea party goalposts have not moved at all!!!

They are still firmly anchored in “reduce spending: NO NEW TAXES”!! Remember, TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already”!! This is exactly the same agenda they have always pursued.

The only movement has been among the big spenders, who keep scrambling to come up with new ways to try to explain why Washington must spend and spend and spend with no restraints whatsoever: even when we’re broke.

Perhaps we are fighting the wrong battle. Like in poker sometimes you just have to pass. Even fold. There’s battles with bigger chips to come.

anotherJoe on December 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Look, I used to accept this argument. There is always room for legitimate disagreement about strategy. The problem is that the GOP has been failing to even hold the line. When they were elected in 2010, the Obama agenda should have ground to a near complete halt. Instead it’s continued rolling along through a series of “caves” by the Republicans and illegal rule by decree from the executive.

When the Democrats were in the minority during the Bush era, the filibuster was enough to basically stop all conservative initiates cold. Nancy Pelosi was hugely successful as Speaker of the House during the Bush years. There are plenty of procedural and administrative tricks the GOP could likely come up with to grind things to a halt until Obama was forced to come to the negotiating table. The shutdown was one.

But the GOP hasn’t done that, because they like Obama and his agenda, they just want to be the ones who get to implement it.

Mitch hears the war drums and wants to be behind the spears, not in front of them.

That’s just fine with me. Shame he couldn’t have been scared a little sooner.

The GOP message needs to be: the sequester is working, and we see no reason to change anything.

And, really, it IS working really well. Okay, the services have some grounds to grouse about it, and it will EVENTUALLY hurt them badly enough to tinker with it, but we can live with that until…oh…January 2017.

They are still firmly anchored in “reduce spending: NO NEW TAXES”!! Remember, TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already”!! This is exactly the same agenda they have always pursued.

The only movement has been among the big spenders, who keep scrambling to come up with new ways to try to explain why Washington must spend and spend and spend with no restraints whatsoever: even when we’re broke.

landlines on December 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Not true. The huge looming problem is boomers retiring at record high. 10,000 per day are eligible for medicare/ssa. Ask tea party groups about that one? DeMint won’t touch it.

The political class is using the conservative base like a boot scraper. Particularly the House political class. We’ve got Boehner, Ryan, and Cantor’s boot heel marks all over us as they bolt across the aisle.

Not true. The huge looming problem is boomers retiring at record high. 10,000 per day are eligible for medicare/ssa. Ask tea party groups about that one? DeMint won’t touch it.

Redford on December 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Pretty much why I left the Tea party (not! taxed enough already). Because it became painfully obvious that the majority of those in the Tea party were there to preemptively argue against tax increases. No problem at all turning over hundreds of trillions of debt to future generations at all.
On a list of 20 some odd line items only a plurality of self identified tea party members were willing to cut foreign aid. Not one other item on the list got a plurality much less a majority of them willing to cut. Including farm aid, and the two you list, social security and medicare.

Pretty much why I left the Tea party (not! taxed enough already). Because it became painfully obvious that the majority of those in the Tea party were there to preemptively argue against tax increases. No problem at all turning over hundreds of trillions of debt to future generations at all.
On a list of 20 some odd line items only a plurality of self identified tea party members were willing to cut foreign aid. Not one other item on the list got a plurality much less a majority of them willing to cut. Including farm aid, and the two you list, social security and medicare.

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I’d argue back that nearly every major confrontation we’ve had with the GOP leadership over the last three years have been over fiscal issues such as spending increases, Sequester, taxes, Obamacare, and amnesty, and constitutional issues like gun control.

I’ll say flat out that if Tea Partiers/Republican base were as infatuated with government spending as everyone else, these confrontations could not have happened.

The problem is that this wait for the big-issues-idea so that the GOP can retake the Senate is that the GOP track record when they have the power isn’t so great…

Bitter Clinger on December 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Ok, but what is the issue now? Really.

I mean, is there even a small issue that we are fighting over now? Or are we just fighting for fighting’s sake?

Sure, the “wait to take the senate” plan isn’t doing so great because… we haven’t taken the senate! Thanks in large part to fielding inexperienced clearly extremist tea party backed candidates like O’Donnell and Murdoch, and we don’t want more of that. I’d say fight if we have a reason to fight, and we can win, and it won’t tar and feather us.

I agree that this is a freebie for McConnell, it costs him nothing since his vote in the Senate is inconsequential. But, if all 40+ senators would at least say something similar; it could make a difference. I called my guy, Burr and requested that he say something similar. I’m not holding my breath.

Most of these do-nothings claim to favor BBA. Do the republicans ever plan to make a real push on this? Perhaps as part of the 2014 election promises? It polls well, what is the hold up?

If sequester is removed via this stupid return to drunken sailor bill, what happens to conservatives when the debt ceiling comes up this spring? We get branded as lunatics…again, probably even by McConnell.

We always have these confrontations. Even back when Bush was president and we had ownership of the house and the senate. There was push back against one child left behind, medicare part D and the fact that the tax cuts were only temporary.

If you look at all the kabuki theater and all the accomplishments from all that push back you just mentioned, the one and the ONLY accomplishment from it has been the sequester, not one single other item has accomplished anything.

As for amnesty and gun control, you would have to be from another country not to know that the amnesty always has major push back, go back to Bush again to see that and the gun lobby has been solidly powerful for decades, particularly so after brady legislation made it perfectly clear we need to be.

The TEA party people I met in Arizona were very little more than a bunch of middle class people who were barely paying their way for the government already angry thinking they were going to be taxed more for the housing bailout, the GM bailout, the simuless and so forth.

Find me the Cut, Cap and Balance Tea Parties and I bet I can find you more than half of them are hypocrites who would refuse to cut any single federal benefit that they receive. More pain and suffering apparently is the only cure for them.

We certainly have time to deal with the long-term problem. It will be painful, but that can wait until we have more control. We need to worry about the terrible fiscal and regulatory policies that are hiring us right now. This isn’t a small issue.

An entity needs to worry about its current cash flow problem before it worries about the debt coming due in 10 to 20 years.

If McConnell is voting against it, it means 2 things, one the thing will pass anyway so he’ll can make his “cover” vote and two, he may be primaried in Kentucky which means he has to do conservative stuff.

Personally I don’t see what the big issue is. There was a big issue before, in October, it was Obamacare. What’s it now?

anotherJoe on December 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I understand your points and generally agree with them. But per your above comment, the big deal for me is that we already had a deal. It was defined by the sequester agreement we had with the Dems.

So what’s with Ryan, Boehner, et al, making another, different, separate deal? Is is because the Dems are backing out of the previous deal and for what purpose? Or is it because many R’s want to back out of the previous deal?

We should have at the very least have forced a vote on the original deal. We should have shown which side it is that won’t honor their commitments. We should have shown the public who it is that was first to say the hell with balancing the budget as promised, before we go compromising in order to keep the Dems from shutting down the government.

But nope. House leadership decided to blow off the opportunity to keep the pressure on the Dems, and particularly Dems in the Senate.

Maybe that isn’t as big a deal I think it is, but that is how I read it and why I think it’s a big deal.

Kabuki Dance Theater. They think we are fools. And they are probably right. Paul Ryan is and ALWAYS has been an establishment toad. He didn’t join the leadership so that they could pretend he wasn’t part of the leadership. He has ALWAYS done what leadership wants him to do, even when he votes against the establishment[which is rare]. Same thing with McConnel. Its an opportunity to pretend that he is conservative with a meaningless vote.

What a disgrace. But they will all probably get re-elected and play their patty cakes with the Dems as we slide to serfdom.

You make some good points. It does seem a shame to just let the Dems run with the ball, and I have taken a liking to the sequester. Yet, possibly it’s hard for us to fight right now if intangible type things are working in the Dems favor. Like, if we are going to be blamed by the public for any and all budget showdowns even if the Dems are mainly responsible. And the Dems may be pushing for a showdown as a way to take attention off of Obamacare.

You have “conservative credibility” by being conservative. If you’re no longer being conservative, then you no longer have the credibility that’s tied to it. Why do people have so much trouble with principle?

The sequester was Mitch McConnell’s idea. He can legitimately claim to be the only Republican whose work had actually reduced federal spending in our lifetimes.

Of course, most conservatives hated the sequester when McConnell came up with it, accusing him of not pushing hard enough for “cut, cap, and balance” and being too eager to make a deal with Obama.

But now apparently we all love the sequester and hate Paul Ryan for getting rid of it. But we still hate Mitch McConnell, because, RINO, or something.

Can someone please tell me where the goalposts will be moved to tomorrow? I’m having a hard time keeping up these days.

rockmom on December 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I think you are confusing “love” for “barely accept” because it’s better than the alternative. Much like advocating for Romney.

To go a little further, if something better than sequester was offered then we’d probably “love” it a bit more.

It’s like asking if you want your sandwich with or without sh!t on it. Of course, you’re going to say pass on the sh!t. Doesn’t mean you’re enamored with two pieces of plain bread, but it’s better than going hungry.